Read me first: Sting in the Scorpions tale is the exposure of Wiki's weakness (original) (raw)
The Internet Watch Foundation's considering an image on Wikipedia - the cover of the heavy metal band Scorpions' album Virgin Killer - to be a "potentially illegal indecent image of a child" set off a chain of events which created a media firestorm. The ham-fisted, over-broad, secretive aspects of the IWF blacklisting action, as well as the freedom of expression and censorware questions, have been widely examined and condemned, so I won't belabour those points.
But Wikipedia's woes in this area did not start recently. There has been a prominent campaign denouncing the sexual aspects of Wikipedia, dating back at least several months. It is probable that the IWF incident was simply one successful aspect of those actions.
Some Wikipedia critics have attacked Jimmy Wales for his past as an entrepreneur on the fringes of the adult entertainment industry, notably efforts such as the "Bomis Babe Report". And Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger has said: "It was... that den of 'glamour photography' (the Jimbo-approved euphemism) that paid my paychecks when I was starting Nupedia and Wikipedia". But although that past may be a public relations problem for Jimmy Wales as he tries to present himself as a benevolent bringer of knowledge (not "altruistic", given his large speaking fees and venture-capital-funded startup), rather than a businessman wanting to run digital sharecropping sites, it also means he's thoroughly familiar with social and legal issues applicable to sexual material while having little patience with activists or shock jocks. As documented on a Wikipedia page about such controversies: "Jimbo once removed a photograph of autofellatio from its relevant article, with the comment: 'This image is completely unacceptable for Wikipedia - I don't even consider this borderline.' ... In June 2007, several lolicon versions of Wikipe-tan were uploaded. In the midst of the deletion debate, Jimbo deleted the images, noting, 'pedophilic sexualization of a community mascot? No. - email me if you have questions.'
Anyone who needs to use an album cover more than three decades old in order to make a Wikipedia sexual controversy is not trying very hard.
Let me be clear: Jimmy Wales is doing the right thing here. His actions are absolutely correct, in terms of patching something which is broken.
The combination of moral-panic-mongers willing to practice a politics of personal destruction and the ability to anonymously advocate for one's favorite fetish on one of the world's most widely read websites leads to constant low-intensity conflict. Wikipedia trades off quality control for greater production. That same design flaw is manifested in extremely weak and failure-prone mechanisms for determining the boundary between provocative and profane.
Given the dynamics whereby articles are sometimes the fiefdom of whomever is most obsessive about the subject, the idea of community acceptability can fail particularly badly. Arguably the major influence keeping things from getting out of hand is top-down directives and administrative patrolling that stamps out the sleazier elements - often, per above, very much against the "anyone can edit" ideal. This will not be mentioned in presentations about the wonders of web collaboration.
It's not easy to address these matters. The cult characteristics of Wikipedia can lead to a bunker mentality. Administrators can avoid criticism by the time-honoured tactic of shooting the messengers - labelling them trolls, then banning them. But to be fair, there really are opportunists who would exploit these difficulties for political gain. When differing country laws and mores are added to the mix, a reasonable person must respect the tremendous complexity that results.
But debate must end somewhere. The Virgin Killer image may have done a disservice by channelling discussion into well-worn channels of free speech versus censorship. There are deeper issues here which will continue to fester: the structural problems of accountability and responsibility, which are intrinsically poor in Wikipedia.